In the opening section, DeLillo is playing with form - a young woman and an older man are sharing a morning over coffee and breakfast and a newspaper.In the opening section, DeLillo is playing with form - a young woman and an older man are sharing a morning over coffee and breakfast and a newspaper. They are just awake. Each paragraph is a thought, and many of the paragraphs are one sentence long. We come to find that what Lauren sees is different than reality, however. The first chapter fixes the reader solidly in her consciousness; she is true, and what she sees and feels is real, at least as real as any feeling or perception can be. And thus the reader is drawn into her confusion over Rey's suicide - we understand how she could have missed subtle signs or clues; we never fully understand what's going on in the head of our loved ones - they remain a mystery.

DeLillo also explores our ability to convey meaning via language. The first level of this is the reader's interaction/knowledge of Lauren based on what we read (we could even start with the level of DeLillo the author himself and the reader's often inevitable interaction with the author) of what she thinks and feels and sees. The reader also makes conclusions and perceives based on what we read and how we interpret what we read. Another level is the ability of words to convey those perceptions. The strange visitor Tuttle mimics - he comprehends on some level and replays pieces; he repeats things he has heard using the words he has but without a full understanding of what the words mean and without the ability to convey a thought clearly. The result is jumbled and confusing - the words mislead. Is he a medium or a parrot or a human tape recorder? Does he say random things that Lauren then interprets - without which he'd be like a random word generator? Is Lauren then uniquely connected to him, like the last two remaining who speak a dying language? Tuttle may also exist out of time. Time moves linearly for Lauren while he is fixed in place - if time were a circle, he is at its middle. The final level is Lauren's art of performance. She uses her body to transition from one person to the next, from a Japanese woman to a naked man; she plays all characters. All characters become one.

DeLillo feeds language/words to the reader through Lauren, who feeds the reader language/words through her perceptions of what she sees/feels. Lauren feeds her audience a visual representation of characters through manipulation of her body. Tuttle feeds Lauren mimicry of words he overhears, especially valuable when they are the words of Rey.

Themes:--Inward looking and reflective - this is not one of DeLillo's big political novels--Vulnerability brings one close to the world - like Wilder in "White Noise"--Art as expression of human-ness

As an aside, the cover art is misleading. I wonder how many people were expecting something different. The art is Caravaggio's "The Musicians" - the boys are singing songs of love and the lute player has tears in his eyes - with love can come great sorrow. When I hear body art, I think tattoos, piercings - another of DeLillo's plays on connections?...more

Siblings Theresa and Jeff Battle's adult lives are not exactly what they envisioned - Theresa hasn't finished (7 years later) her dissertation on theSiblings Theresa and Jeff Battle's adult lives are not exactly what they envisioned - Theresa hasn't finished (7 years later) her dissertation on the eccentric woman who wrote the known first autobiography; she currently works on copy for the local candle company, and Jeff, currently unemployed, was let go from his job of driving a school bus after kicking a kid off his bus one day who was picking on a chubby girl. When Jeff's girlfriend is first missing and then found dead, Jeff, who has a small drinking problem, becomes a primary suspect. Theresa knows her brother is innocent and starts digging into the details.

I was touched by this book b/c I felt Theresa and I were generationally similar - her references to (at least my version of) pop culture were spot on. She was a very real and spunky person (in ways that Jeff wasn't) - I also fundamentally understand someone who decides to get a PhD in English Lit but doesn't, and is somehow fine with it and somehow finds a job that is OK and pays the bills (life isn't what we might have envisioned when we were in undergrad). I also admired the fact that she dropped everything and focused on her brother (something a more "traditional" grown-up might not be at liberty to do). This was a fun read, but I inherently find mysteries somehow ... lacking. Due to the compelling protagonist and the fun aspect, however, I'd read more by Arsenault.

Could a "successful" mystery be judged by the number of readers, who after, say, 50-65% of the way through the book, can't guess the killer?...more

It is life as usual until Part II (slightly over 50% of the way through). Part I Miranda isn't especially remarkable - she has had her share of lovesIt is life as usual until Part II (slightly over 50% of the way through). Part I Miranda isn't especially remarkable - she has had her share of loves and of loss. She is in her thirties and attends her high school reunion w/ her best friend from high school. She falls in love with a married man who has grown children. She is slightly self-righteous and judgmental, but in a realistic way. The story is told from her perspective as an older woman reflecting on her past.

Carroll is playing with the idea of inherent selfishness (read up on rational egoism), but it doesn't quite work; he's all over the place, and the story's format (slooooooow Part I and wild and crazy Part II) gives the reader literary whiplash.

**spoiler alert**When Hugh and Miranda move into a huge Victorian given to Miranda by a kindred spirit, Miranda starts to have visions or hallucinations. After Hugh dies these visions become especially disturbing and violent; Miranda has a series of realizations: she knows things are happening across town, she sees movie-style the alternate realities of her big life decisions, she has the power to manipulate fate, to change things from the way they were meant to be, that she is immortal via reincarnation.

I struggle with the premise that Miranda was so universally disliked (re: the stadium of hate-filled people) - small acts of selfishness typically don't result in violent hatred. Could she have been better, nicer, more giving, more thoughtful? Sure. Was she a sociopath - meh. No. Carroll argues that her ultimate fault was the prick of a million pins, not one fatal blow, and that with each of these pricks she sucked the blood of those who loved her - she lived off them in a spiritual sense. That small acts of goodness and kindness are key and could have changed the course of her life and the life of those who loved her. That just because everyone is selfish isn't reason enough for us to be so. However, she was everyman - we all do things because they make us feel better; we help others because helping them makes us feel better about ourselves - we are rewarded by feeling good; would we do that act of kindness if it brought no pleasure and no reward? Miranda is faced with a choice - she allegedly loves her child selflessly (well, not so much, come to find out - she loves the idea that she won't be alone when she's old == selfish), so she has the choice about whether to give her immortality to her child. But won't that make her child a selfish, horrible person, taking vampire bites in order to survive? When she gives her immortality to Hugh's other reality child, and this child rescues Miranda, does this mean we're in a new regime? I think it's a case of scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours.

Carroll's fiction often focuses on this alternate fantasy world that is just beyond our grasp; we have the potential to join this world if we open our minds. I do find this interesting - is it because of its inherently escapist qualities?...more

Jack was A.M. Homes first novel, written when she was 19 and published in 1989 when she was 27 or 28. Jack is a single child who finds out, long afterJack was A.M. Homes first novel, written when she was 19 and published in 1989 when she was 27 or 28. Jack is a single child who finds out, long after his father moves out and his mother gets a new boyfriend, that his father is gay.

This is young adult fiction, even though it doesn't state as such on my Vintage Contemporaries copy. Some of the blurbs compare it to Catcher in the Rye, which seems a stretch to me. This, of course, is a coming-of-age story -- Jack grows up and figures out that not everything is about him, that his parents have lives of their own, that grownups aren't infallible. I suppose I feel I should have been forewarned about the young-adult angle... Homes's voice is unique and vivacious but I feel the subject matter has been done....more

Right or wrong, I judge a short story collection by how well I can remember the individual stories later. Thompson's stories have no pat ending; the rRight or wrong, I judge a short story collection by how well I can remember the individual stories later. Thompson's stories have no pat ending; the reader is often left slightly uncomfortable. Her characters make one wonder if true happiness is even possible or if all is compromise. These are stories of loneliness; the characters are in the process of figuring themselves out, of finding where they belong, of trying to determine what it is they want. I don't think the comparison to Alice Munro is out of order - Thompson is very good.

The story "Do Not Deny Me" was not my favorite - I wonder why she picked that to be the title of the collection?...more

Alien beings (or, at least, alien space ships or containers) have come (briefly) and gone. All that remains are five areas called the Zones where evidAlien beings (or, at least, alien space ships or containers) have come (briefly) and gone. All that remains are five areas called the Zones where evidence of a technology much advanced remains scattered about. The book opens thirteen years after the visit. Partially because of the danger and threat of leaks of this advanced technology into the wrong hands, the government has restricted access to the Zone. In steps the stalkers, those who sneak in to take this miracle technology and sell it to the highest bidder.

This book takes a unique perspective on alien encounters and focuses exclusively on how the humans handle the aftermath. The visitors remain completely mysterious; no one remembers encountering an alien being.

Themes: Mystery of desireDuality of human natureScience fiction vs fairy tale: the golden ball has fairy tale precedence; I struggled with the fact that all technology was inexplicable until the golden ball shows upAlien as god

**spoiler alert**Much has been written about why Earth was visited and why so much was left behind (to fight, to steal, to play, to learn). The Strugatskys never give an explanation (one critical assessment compares this to god - god is infinite and thus beyond description; these are god-like aliens in that they are far beyond human advancement). In fact, although much emotional energy is spent wondering why, life continues on. Babies are born, the government dictates more standards, certain people capitalize on the Zone. Although the visit was one of the most auspicious events of human history, overall humans are not set on a different path; those around the Zone are impacted but it is unclear that life on Earth itself has changed. If one cannot understand nor ignore, consume, which is in fact what happens. One could find hope in this - there is no Fate; humans decide their own cosmic destiny.

Despite the fact that the book is called "Roadside Picnic", lending some credence to this specific theory, one critical essay focuses exclusively on the postulation that there was no visit/picnic at all; the assertion is that the Zones were formed by alien pods filled with technology that largely malfunctioned when the pods hit Earth; only 1% of Earth's surface is city, so what are the odds that even one picnic would be in a city? To be possessors of such a vast technology implies an understanding of the impacts of that technology were they to go awry or were they to be damaged. Therefore, along with human greed being one of our strongest surviving characteristics, the aliens show murderous indifference.

We spent some amount of time as a group discussing pieces of the book that had us perplexed or at least confused.

Much of the book is told from Red's perspective, a man who doesn't know how to think. He reacts, trying to do the best for his family. He is everyman; this is not a SF book told from the perspective of highly educated scientists or explorers. This is a unique perspective for SF - it'd be like hearing about a natural disaster by the clean up crew....more

Dorothy, a lonely, ignored, California housewife, takes in a six-plus foot tall green monster who has escaped from a lab where experiments were beingDorothy, a lonely, ignored, California housewife, takes in a six-plus foot tall green monster who has escaped from a lab where experiments were being performed. He killed two men while escaping. She manages to hide him from her husband, who doesn't bother himself with the ways of the house.

Caliban is a half-human monster in Shakespeare's "The Tempest." He tries to rape Miranda and is thus thrust into servitude by Miranda's father, Prospero. In naming this book Mrs. Caliban, is Ingalls' Dorothy in fact Miranda?

*spoiler alert*Much as been written about this book. Some compare it to a modern fairy tale = it is a book about a woman, Dorothy and her husband have a very traditional arrangement (she takes care of the house, he leaves for work every day), they live in a world that is not to be contested (Dorothy thinks about going to a lawyer but never does; she takes the hand that Fate has handed to her), it is a counter-world, a dream-world of amphibious men/frogs. Like Beauty and the Beast, she looks beyond the physical to see the beauty within.

Others discuss it as Shakespearean - human effects pitted against contemporary society. Larry doesn't fit - he doesn't understand that killing humans is the ultimate crime. Dorothy is innocent and protected and hungry for love - because she is separated from society in many ways, she largely walks its perimeter.

Others see it as postmodern and psychological. Dorothy hears voices that others don't hear, something that may have been triggered by the (mysterious, suspicious?) deaths of two children and, later, by a pet dog. Her husband and her best friend's daughter die in a fiery car crash at the end of the novel, and she never sees Larry again...begging the question, did Larry in fact ever exist? Or was Dorothy in fact the most enlightened and thus the most capable of seeing him? Even darker, were the deaths of her children purely accidental? Like Kafka, everything is told matter-of-factly, which works brilliantly....more

An 18th century Hindu poet-warrior is reincarnated as a monkey in modern day India. The monkey, Sanjay, cannot speak but can type; he is saved from YaAn 18th century Hindu poet-warrior is reincarnated as a monkey in modern day India. The monkey, Sanjay, cannot speak but can type; he is saved from Yama (Death) by Hanuman, a god who survives forever as long as people tell stories about him and keep his memory alive. Hanuman and Yama come to a compromise - Sanjay can live if he tells a story for 2 hours, during which no more than 1/2 the audience can be bored for greater than 5min.

Very little of the book is set in modern day India or the US (this is not a book about the monkey "now"). It is an epic, the first epic I've ever read based on the Hindus and colonization. It is based on the life of James Skinner, otherwise known as Sikander, as told from one of Sikander's childhood friends and neighbors, Sanjay. This is a book populated with magical realism and strange happenings and long lived people and many wars. There are little boys who get dropped on their heads and old men with beards down to the ground. This is a book that begs you to keep a timeline so you can keep track of the characters. Chandra fills in gaps and takes some liberties but stays mostly true to Sikander's history.

Themes include the following (**spoiler alert**:--Loyalty - what does one do when those one loves, esp family and friends, are on the other side on a debate that one would fight to the death? Spare them? Give them up? It's a case of core values vs love. In the novel, characters pick one or the other, both losing propositions.--Colonization - in the end Sanjay metaphorically fights a man who is British Indian who has also found immortality. Sarthey is Jack the Ripper.--Mixed blood - where do you fit if you are half of one thing and half of another, especially if this means you aren't recognized or trusted by either side? Sikander fought for the same people, the English, who didn't even recognize him as English. He lived in India and built churches/mosque in the British style.--Cultural belonging - clearly this is not a problem only of the 18th century - Abhay's "now" is the foil of today's world and its problems, now with the US

Why doesn't this rate higher? Fact - it is too long. What makes other epics 5 stars? Their perfect balance of length and content (like Crime and Punishment, like One Hundred Years of Solitude, like A Fine Balance)....more

Doctors take cells from Henrietta Lacks' cancerous cervix only to find that they continue to replicate in the lab with the proper food source and withDoctors take cells from Henrietta Lacks' cancerous cervix only to find that they continue to replicate in the lab with the proper food source and without dying, making them the perfect cells for scientific work. However, Henrietta's family is never informed.

The research and time with the family was clearly extensive and laudable. Skloot makes the decision to keep the vernacular, which feels honest and minimizes miss-interpretation but has the chance to backfire with certain readers. We discussed obliquely in book club whether the book took a side, so to speak, and the group was divided (science versus privacy and full and open disclosure). We all agreed that the book would not have been the same without Deborah - for her, finding out more about her mother's cells was about learning about her mother. She wanted acknowledgement that her mother was a person first, a person that may have not been treated, in line with the times or not, instead of monetary recognition.

The most interesting thing for me was learning the medical field are not the darlings we often make them out to be. "First do no harm" clearly was loosely interpreted by some doctors.

Skloot walks a delicate line - the Lacks feel that they have been exploited and marginalized by the medical society; they also feel that their privacy has been violated. How does a book about them written by someone else not do that very thing?

Maybe I need to read more non-fiction...why is this book "groundbreaking?" Because it makes biology accessible?...more

In Ireland a young girl is found dead on a ancient altar in a wooded field being excavated before being turned into a freeway. To make matters more inIn Ireland a young girl is found dead on a ancient altar in a wooded field being excavated before being turned into a freeway. To make matters more interesting, the same woods were the site of a previous unsolved case involving three children - two went missing and were never found, and the third was found with blood-filled shoes and no memory of previous events.

In its density and depth, this book reminds me of Donna Tartt's "A Secret History." It is as much about the murder as it is about the characters - this is not the craggy loner private eye. This is not "hard-boiled." The book is written in the first person in past tense - the narrator is reflecting on a crime that changed his life, and it has vague metafiction tones - the narrator refers to the reader as "you" - "You had as good a chance as I did [to figure it out, to solve the mystery]." French also writes friends really well - that rare, insane bond between two people and the depth of the betrayal when that friendship goes awry or peters out....more

When a young girl's creative mother disappears after a series of mishaps, she pieces together the story using email, letters, etc. This book is that cWhen a young girl's creative mother disappears after a series of mishaps, she pieces together the story using email, letters, etc. This book is that collection.

The blurbs on the book (one from Franzen, which is in fact why I picked this up...) characterize this as "funny," "cracklingly smart", "intelligent and enlightening". I did find the parts about Seattle hilarious (reminding me of a bumper sticker we saw that read "Keep Portland sanctimonious") - it was a refreshing take on a city/culture that is almost too hip and successful for its own good. This book perfectly captures the passive aggressive nature of neighbors and fellow parents and co-workers, to name a few - someone once said that crazy folk in a city are contained and less damaging because they are surrounded by people who by proximity are keeping an eye on them, like it or not - you are rubbing elbows in a soup of disparity, and this keeps one from getting completely out of hand (making country folk the true scary). Bernadette is that creative type that rocks the boat.

Outrageous satire (?) about a small Texas town thrown into chaos after an abused boy kills several in a school shooting; his only friend Vernon, the nOutrageous satire (?) about a small Texas town thrown into chaos after an abused boy kills several in a school shooting; his only friend Vernon, the narrator, is suspected of aiding and/or perpetrating.

There was much uproar when this book won the Booker prize over such authors as Margaret Atwood and Monica Ali and Zoe Heller. The critics range from applauding the Booker panel of judges for recognizing the daring risks taken by the author to deploring the panel for putting sensationalism over quality of content.

I was most interested in success of the satirical approach. This is a book written by a non-American (Pierre has lived in many places - in 2003 he lived in Ireland) about a Texas school shooting. Was the book slightly off re: vernacular? - Yes (e.g. Americans/Texans do not say "get bent"). Yet, was it uncomfortably close to American problems? - Yes. I was always aware while reading the book that it wasn't written by someone in-the-know - it was written by an outsider looking in - was this device part of the satire? Is in fact Pierre making fun of the fact that America gets so much sensational press coverage outside the US? Is this also about our need to place blame when a tragedy occurs - we blame the media, drugs, peer-pressure, poor parenting, the school system, gun accessibility, American pop culture - all of which come under the satirical cross hairs. The US has more school killings than any other country - fact - but the problem is not exclusively American.

Satire by definition is a critique - it is meant to persuade an audience to change, to highlight using humor what is wrong with a situation or society or individual or philosophy. Therefore, is the intended audience of this novel Americans or other Westerners? He couldn't have dreamed he'd win the Booker and thus reach a huge American audience (his first publisher was the British Faber) - so America cannot specifically be the intended audience == it at least partially falls within the camp of sensationalism, of tabloid writing, unless the above is true - that this is in fact about our dirty desire to judge and placing blame and to immerse ourselves in others' tragedies and pitfalls. (Note the recent push towards forcing the media to report on the victims over the perpetrators). The success of the novel for me rests on understanding this question.

Overall, it is hilarious and plot driven. The writing feels fresh and young and high-energy if at times driven by potty humor. My discomfort w/ the satire and where it is placed and by whom towards whom explains my lack of overall satisfaction.

**potential spoiler alerts**This is an attempt to deconstruct the satire:1) Overweight Americans - the prevalence of Bar-B-Chew in the novel makes the restaurant practically a character. Clearly none of the people of Martirio are going hungry. Many are overweight and go on outrageous diets over the shooting itself! Vernon's mother's friend pulls him out of the interrogation room where he is a murder suspect to ensure he eats lunch. Being thin is a status symbol - Vernon's mom is friends with Pam b/c Pam is heavier than she is - Pam's weight is not a threat to her. Therefore, overweight == lazy, stupid, uneducated, poor; this is primarily an American problem. All fits obvious and over-used stereotypes.2) White trash - like many of the reality TV shows that came later, this book focuses on a lower class community; many do not have jobs, many are not educated, they thrive on media attention, they chase after get-rich-quick schemes...all while wanting for little. The community's response to the massacre is wearing black and putting up tiny crosses. The Lechugas buy teddy bears (still in wrappers) and fill their lawn for the death of their unpopular son Max. "Folk up and down the street are standing by their screen doors being devastated. Mom's so-called friend Leona was already devastated last week, when Penney's delivered the wrong color kitchen drapes." Members of the community make money off the tragedy by selling t-shirts. == even the death of children isn't enough to kick these folks out of their white trash rut.3) Poor parenting, lack of role models - the lack of parenting is pervasive; Vernon's mother starts sleeping with the media (Lally), a man she knows nothing about and who is clearly trying to get close to the family for a story; she makes the shooting something that happened to her, she doesn't ever have a clear conversation w/ Vernon about the incident, she indicates that she believes he is guilty publically via thoughtless comments "even murderers are loved by their families!" In order to ascertain whether Vernon is gay, a guard asks him how many "offices" a girl has. Vernon's mom doesn't make it to all his court appearances b/c she has sold the car and is lying to everyone about it being in the shop. She has killed Vernon's father and buried him under the uneven bench; Vernon is in fact protecting her by hiding the gun!4) Sensationalist media - the media in the form of Eulalio Ledesma; Vernon takes directions on how to act in court by watching Court TV and studying the body language of the innocent; the watching public gets to vote on who hits death row first; innocence is about how you come off to the media5) Everyone is out for #1 - in a nice twist, Vernon uses this to tidy up his situation6) Placing blame - community vs individual; drugs; in fact the students themselves know of Nuckles's guilt - the children know more than the adults; culpability is not placed where it should (although the psychiatrist is finally exposed); Jesus fits the stereotype - he's an outsider, he's bullied for being different, for being gay, even the authority figures are using him, he is a rape victim, he's depressed, he is poor and a minority in a mostly-white town, he has access to a gun == he's the poster child for American school killings and yet very little focus is placed on the individual, except by Vernon himself7) Guilt vs innocence - Vernon has "guilty looking hair" and wears the same shoes as the killer == evidence for the prosecution. Vernon goes over the border into Mexico. He has a lingerie catalogue in his room = guilty....more

David, an avid reader, loses his mother to cancer whereupon he begins to hear books speak; eventually his dad remarries to a woman named Rose, and theDavid, an avid reader, loses his mother to cancer whereupon he begins to hear books speak; eventually his dad remarries to a woman named Rose, and they move into a big old house that was passed down through Rose's family. Children in the past have gone missing from this house; David is living in the room of the boy who disappeared. David embarks on an adventure that forces him to mature through application of lessons he's learned through his reading, leaving the selfishness of childhood behind.

This is a book for those who love fairy tales; Connolly uses common fairy tales like Snow White and Brian Rose and Little Red Riding Hood and integrates these well-known characters into David's adventure much like a child's dreams integrate the stories they have heard by day. Magic abounds. Connolly also plays with the fact that fairy tales are not just for children - although I did enjoy the book, I think it was sufficiently challenging for young adults. There's a little twist at the end that forces the reader to ask whether it all happened or was merely a delusion. My edition includes some backup resources and in some cases the original fairy tale itself. Using a story or stories that are familiar provides a common background; it was not uncomfortable at all that the different stories were intermixed....more

Words like slow, honest, sober, gentle, restrained, intelligent, clear have been used to describe this book. In fact, with respect to what language caWords like slow, honest, sober, gentle, restrained, intelligent, clear have been used to describe this book. In fact, with respect to what language can do to evoke an image in the mind, this book is near perfect as it connects life and humans in a way that is deeply human, beyond race or creed. Yann Martel said that this book itself is a metaphor for a church - white, cleanly lit, sparsely populated.

John Ames is a 76-year-old minister in 1956 who is experiencing health problems. He is writing a series of letters to his seven year old son to be read when his is dead and when his son is older. The letters or diary are meditations on faith and spirituality, on the beauty and wonder of life, on language and thought and love, and are interspersed with the current drama in 1956 - the return of a prodigal son of his best friend, a fellow minister. They are thinking on paper.

There is much depth to such a small book - and this is Robinson's genius, just like in Housekeeping: some say this book is really all about racism, some say it is all about Calvinism, some say it is all about how we come to terms with death - and all would be correct. This is a literature major's dream book :)

Re: racism:Setting the book in 1956 and discussing three generations allows Robinson to cover the time of the Civil War, through WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, and the beginning of the civil rights movement. This theme seems to provide the backbone and the structure of the novel; the interactions with Jack are the action and momentum that move the story forward. "There is a Balm in Gilead" is an African American spiritual.

Re: CalvinismCalvinism and Puritanism play a very important role, of course. The main male characters are all named John Ames after John Edwards, a key Calvinist; in fact, the narrator John Ames had a brother named Edward Ames. Robinson reminds us that the Midwest Puritans were actually highly educated and were actively anti-slavery. They were liberals - radical, enlightened, energetic, educated. What we remember now is how crazy and fanatical they were, but in fact they made the Midwest a center of ideas for equality and freedom. Narrator John Ames writes to his son about finding God's essence in the natural beauty of daily life. He experiences the divine in the immediate; this is his solution to those who try to reason through God. He is content and fulfilled to simply live - beauty is his proof and is his heaven. He writes about Gilead as if it were in fact a heaven of sorts. This is in response to the current and widely held belief that the Puritans celebrated suffering as proof of God. Grandfather Ames is an example of this - he gives away possessions (even those that aren't his), he is militant and violent, he finds gifts in losses. This is basically a projection of his vision on the world - he is finding a way to reason through the pain and suffering, but he is applying a filter. Narrator Ames looks upon the world at face value. He sees incandescence in humans as proof - maybe why he is content to stay at home in the tiny town of Gilead?

Housekeeping has parallels with the tradition of Melville in Moby Dick; Robinson appreciates the extended metaphor, and there are many metaphors in this book. Water, like in Housekeeping, plays a strong role - water as Christian, as pure, as a way to dissolve. The idea of light as a symbol of God used frequently in religious art is present here as well....more

Hilarious novel about Chuck Burgoyne, at first the perfect houseguest, and his hosts, the Graves, a self-satisfied over-privileged bunch. The entire bHilarious novel about Chuck Burgoyne, at first the perfect houseguest, and his hosts, the Graves, a self-satisfied over-privileged bunch. The entire book is set in their summer house on the ocean. Hilarity ensues when, one by one, all members of the Graves family realize that in fact, Chuck was not invited; in fact, they are so polite as to assume that someone else invited him, entirely missing the fact that he was a stranger to all. He is very handy - he can tinker with cars, he can do more than boil pasta (the extent of their cooking skills), etc. However, when Chuck oversteps the bounds of a houseguest, the Graves must take things into their own lacking hands.

This is my second Berger; based on how fun it was to read, I'll read more.

*spoiler alert*This is a satire on the follies of human nature right up Shakespeare's alley - despite how horrible Chuck is, the reader has the sinking suspicion that he might in fact be a better person than they! The Graves have the disgusting ability to justify and talk themselves into almost any reprehensible act (the senior Graves is a lawyer, the younger a fledgling one). The rape sequence was uncomfortable - it's a literary device; much like Barnes in Love, etc, the rape itself is used to further a theme but has the ability to become all the focus, at least for this reader. The rape was treated, in the end, as equal in magnitude to Chuck's other transgressions (like carrying a gun) - this doesn't ring true, even as I understand Berger's intent....more

Miles voluntarily goes off to boarding school, hoping for the "Great Perhaps;" his dad had fond stories of the school and the bonding between studentsMiles voluntarily goes off to boarding school, hoping for the "Great Perhaps;" his dad had fond stories of the school and the bonding between students possible when living in dorms. The school is roughly divided between the rich kids and the average kids; Miles makes friends and falls in love w/ crazy Alaska Young. Much smoking, pranks, discussion of books and religion ensues.

**potential spoiler alert**I don't fully understand the overwhelming theme of death in young adult fiction. In fact, I think this guy is for mature young adults based on the sexual references/details.

I like John Green's ability to discuss big topics w/in the scope of a traditional novel. Is this feat easier when your protagonists are teenagers? The inevitable coming-of-age moments lend themselves to big topics like the meaning of life and death and love and the difference between right and wrong? One common topic is the end of solipsism - these kids learn that they are not the center of the universe, that just like everyone that came before, we aren't remembered long after we die. We're kept alive in people's memories, and when those people forget or when those people die, even that small piece is lost. Miles in his final essay states that people are greater than the sum of their parts - a person cannot be summarized, and it is that part of people that defies description that explains why young people feel invincible - that part of them will never die even if their other fallible parts do. (pg 220)

Book for people who like books

My favorite quote of the book: "The Buddha said that suffering was caused by desire ... and that the cessation of desire meant the cessation of suffering. When you stopped wishing things wouldn't fall apart, you'd stop suffering when they did." (pg196)...more

Retired linguistics professor Desmond Bates is going deaf, which is the source of much embarrassment. He drives his wife crazy as even mundane conversRetired linguistics professor Desmond Bates is going deaf, which is the source of much embarrassment. He drives his wife crazy as even mundane conversation such as "where is the non-stick sauce pan?" is heard as "mumble, mumble, long-stick", and he gets himself into scrapes, often hilarious, as a result of missing key discussion points as he tries to navigate a quieter world. He inadvertently manages to agree to meet an American student who is writing her thesis on suicide notes; Alex is a pathological liar and is lacking a moral high ground. Hilarity ensues as Desmond tries to do the right thing without sacrificing too much of his pride. Told partly in the form of a journal, it is beautiful writing from David Lodge, living up to his other excellent works; he balances irreverence (just how silly adults can be) with somber topics.

Themes:--Aging and death - what is a life worth living? What do we do when we are adding less value to society (i.e. post retirement)? Where does one fit when work no longer provides the structure? Lodge ties the theme into Alex's research into suicide. There is no cure for deafness, just like there is no cure for aging. Desmond turns to alcohol, which numbs the situation as it adds complications.--The power/importance of communication; the importance of being heard - it is telling that people write notes to their family or to God before killing themselves = one of the last things they do is communicate, try to get through to someone, try to make others listen. Maybe there is some guilt in being deaf, because you no longer can receive information from your loved ones at the same level of comprehension? To draw on the parallel to suicide, the loved ones (or society) are effectively deaf and blind to the dire situation of the depressed; they can't hear what the depressed are saying with actions or words or they don't know how to fix it. Desmond is a linguist and a teacher - again, a nod to the power of communication. It is ironic that someone schooled in communication, language, struggles so much when one sense is compromised.--Marriage--Disability and aloneness - maneuvering w/in society works best for those who are not different; Desmond finds himself getting more reclusive as a way to handle his deafness--Pride...more

I loved "London Fields;" Amis is an intelligent and terrific writer. This book is very different than "London Fields" and summaries I've read of his oI loved "London Fields;" Amis is an intelligent and terrific writer. This book is very different than "London Fields" and summaries I've read of his other books - it is an America-based crime novel. A young, brilliant, beautiful girl with everything to live for is found dead in her apartment with a gun in her hand and three bullets in her brain. She is the beloved daughter of the police chief, who cannot believe his daughter killed herself and assigns world-weary Mike Hoolihan, a detective of whom he is very fond and who knew the victim personally.

**spoiler alert**This book clearly doesn't fit into Amis's common themes of commentary on contemporary culture or satire. Uncommonly named Mike, who is in fact a female detective, tells the reader about the emotional difficulty of police work; over the course of her long career she has accumulated a vast working background of suicide and its causes; she could in fact write a knowledgeable thesis on the subject. She is smart and professional and hard working. She has had a hard life, in direct contrast to the victim, Jennifer, who in fact appears to have been too smart, too lucky, with too few problems. Mike, piece by piece, uncovers Jennifer's message, her game of sorts. At the end, like Mike, the reader is angry and baffled by Jennifer. Mike spends the novel trying to figure her out, trying to answer the question that surviving family members always have - why? Amis doesn't apologize (although Mike does) for the questions left unanswered. Mike tells us about the title, the night train, which is suicide (you purchase a one-way ticket into the night where you are left), but also represents Mike's everyday life; the sound of the night train is her companion when she's in her apartment. Night Train is also a Bruce Cockburn song: "“Not a knife-throw from here you can hear the night train passing; That’s the sound that someone makes when they’re getting away; Leaving next week’s hanging jury far behind them; Prisoner only of the choices they’ve made; Night train"

Why would Jennifer set it up to appear like the textbook suicide, a movie suicide? To make it more believable to her father? Boyfriend on the side, depression, job worries, drug problem, suicide note...? Is the fact she's trying to hide something to do with her job - that as the universe expands or contracts, human trials and tribulations amount to nothing? That in this vastness, we are nothing, our personal problems are nothing? Her quote, that man cannot stare at the sun without going blind is a reference to gospel and/or a reference to François de La Rochefoucauld; one cannot stare at the mystery of why god became a man in the Christian faith without faith or he'll be overtaken by an even greater darkness. From La Rochefoucauld, it's "Neither the sun nor death can be looked at steadily." Not only did Jennifer fully understand that she was going to die (she was a policeman's daughter!), she understood that humans have great capacity for evil doings. Connect this with the expanding universe or the contracting one, and she's ready to go belly up? Maybe in fact this book isn't far behind Amis's other work - a satire on how little we respect the beautiful lives we're given - we want even more, we want immortality or we want to mean something to the universe, to be gods....more

This is classic hard-boiled fiction, which per WIKI has the following characteristics: Tough, unsentimental, earthy realism, naturalism, graphic sex/vThis is classic hard-boiled fiction, which per WIKI has the following characteristics: Tough, unsentimental, earthy realism, naturalism, graphic sex/violence (Milo sleeps w/ three women over the course of the novel, and references are made to several others; 9 people die over the course of the novel), vivid/sordid backgrounds (for a small town, there is much poverty and drug use and alcoholism), fast-paced, slangy dialogue, gritty and American. If you like this genre of novel this book is for you. Crumley is compared to Hammett and Chandler; I think Milo might in fact be even more self-destructive than Sam Spade and Marlowe.

Published in 1975, this book still feels fresh; this book was only Crumley's second novel. It is fast paced and fun to read.

Milo, part of a declining family once very influential, had been making his living as a detective specializing in divorce claims that could only be won by proving one's spouse was an adulterer or a felon, is now a private investigator. A beautiful and vulnerable woman arrives at his office minutes they both observe a 12-year-old purse snatcher die in a traffic accident. She wants Milo to find her lost brother, a flamboyant gay man with a gunslinger attitude. My only complaint, probably unfair if the age of the novel is taken into account, is how tidily it fits into the hard-boiled description; it is almost as if Crumley was asked to write a hard-boiled novel, and he sat down with its description tacked to the wall in front of him. This very down-pat-ness is what makes it a classic worth reading, on the other hand....more

Three parallel plot lines open the novel. One of these stories involves the Monkey King, who is a main character in a Chinese classic novel (where heThree parallel plot lines open the novel. One of these stories involves the Monkey King, who is a main character in a Chinese classic novel (where he is also known as Sun Wukong). In the classic, he is a monkey born of a rock who acquires supernatural powers through Taoist practices (in ABC it is Kung-Fu). After rebelling against heaven (at a dinner party in ABC) and being buried under a mountain by Tze-Yo-Tzuh (Buddha?), he is later rescued by monk Wong Lai-Tsao, who he then accompanies on the monk's journeys. In the second story Jin Wang is a 9 or 10 year old boy who has moved from his apartment near Chinatown to a neighborhood with little ethnic diversity. He struggles to fit in at school. In the third story Chin-Kee fulfills every negative Chinese stereotype and wreaks havoc on his cousin Danny's life when he comes to visit. Danny is popular and athletic, but Chin-Kee threatens Danny's ability to fit it with his outrageous behavior. The three stories converge at the end.

**spoiler alert**This is a clever use of parallel plot lines (a device that is especially suited for graphic novels); Luen Yang integrates stories that are part of Chinese culture with the classic theme of cultural and racial integration. There are parallels between the Monkey King's outcast status in heaven and the trials of American-born Chinese in the US; in fact the Monkey King, after being mocked in heaven for not wearing shoes, forces his people to wear shoes, a nod to the theme of assimilation, but is one of the trivialities he abandons when he joins the monk on his holy travels. However whereas the Monkey King eventually wages a war of one against many based on insults to his pride, Jin Wang, in this novel, lacks his superpowers, struggles to fit in and in fact lacks a strong sense of self/identity. Chin-Kee, on the other hand, like the Monkey King, makes no effort to be like everyone else; he is a parody representing negative Chinese stereotypes and he represents what Jin most fears that others will see in him. It is only when Jin confronts Chin-Kee honestly (==his fears of being different, his Chinese heritage) that he returns to his natural form, being given a chance to correct wrongs he set in motion....more

1) Shadow was not a compelling character. And when I read about a single character foWhy did I dislike this book? Direct references (spoilers?) below.

1) Shadow was not a compelling character. And when I read about a single character for 588 pages, he better darn well be interesting. Shadow was ... kind of boring. He followed others (...like a shadow?). He didn't ask questions. He liked to live and let live. It almost seemed that when Laura called him on it, stating that his life wasn't much of a life, we the reader were supposed to deduce, "OK, Gaiman knows, so it's OK." His name hints at it, too, but I'm not sure a form with no substance should be the protagonist.

2) A book this long either is long b/c it tries to tie up loose ends or because it is creating loose ends like shrapnel, and it was the latter in this case. Here we go: --Wednesday/Odin hires Shadow by stalking him - he is where Shadow is, even though Shadow is traveling alone and randomly. Therefore, why does Wednesday/Odin need Shadow to be his driver? There are cases where Shadow doesn't even get out of the car - why doesn't Wednesday/Odin just beam himself to the meet?--What happened to the coin that represented the moon?--And what about the fact that Wednesday/Odin is Shadow's father? Dropped like a bomb and then very little - I should have known when Wednesday/Odin said, "--for the most part--people like me fire blanks...[Progeny] used to happen in the old days. Nowadays, it's possible, but so unlikely as to be almost unimaginable." Does that mean Shadow is part god?--And, really, Shadow's best friend's wife was Chad's cousin – isn’t that a tad convenient??--And if there are gods in the television that can see what you are doing, how is it possible for anyone to hide? What about the god of electricity? Couldn't he find out where Shadow was holed up and just electrocute him, heck, all of them, with a shock of electricity?--Was Cousin Jack in the Essie story Mr World? I had trouble making the connections between gods set in Shadow’s current reality and the gods from the past that came across w/ the Indians or on slave ships, etc.--Further, why should humans even care about a war between the gods? Life as they know it moves forward and they create new things to worship; it almost appears as if the balance of power shifted to humans - therefore, why set the war in the center of America? Come to find out that if the pesky humans no longer sacrifice their children to the gods, I suppose the gods must just sacrifice children to themselves, darn it!--The god of Mr Town? Who worships a town? I worship the god of the Magic Eraser – where was he in all this?!

3) Out of proportion - too much time in the build up, too little time focused on the war itself and its aftermath

4) Where were the "familiar" gods like Jesus and Muhammad and Smith?

I do like the premise and the topic; I don't think it was executed to the fullness of its potential. The wiki page on Odin is pretty cool – in fact there is a poem where Odin sacrifices himself on a tree (...so Odin is Shadow???!!!). I suppose that the gods are too much for a mere mortal to comprehend. I probably would have been burned at the stake if born a few hundred years earlier for my disbelief (if I didn’t first walk off a cliff or into the clutches of a lair of evil bandits – which I would have done w/o the benefit of “modern” technology=glasses)....more

Interlacing present and past, strong willed Framboise tells the story of her childhood in German-occupied France and the impact that childhood decisioInterlacing present and past, strong willed Framboise tells the story of her childhood in German-occupied France and the impact that childhood decisions and tragic events had on her life in the present.

Harris writes very compelling and human characters. This book was a pleasure to read for its imagery and a good story to boot. A small town steps through day to day life in a time of war, which seems far off except for the presence of German soldiers and the three Dartigen children's missing father. Harris writes occupied France from an interesting angle - from that of children. Adults either ignore children or overlook them, and that results in an interesting perspective as the children make conclusions or gain knowledge based on their interpretation of an adult world that denies them in an effort to protect them. Harris writes children well, esp the silly games they play, the way they interact with each other, the way they view their parents and other authority figures, their strange superstitions, etc; Framboise describing herself as a child allows Harris to write her more maturely than she probably was; in reflection she gives her childhood self motive but doesn't sugar coat; she admits she was on a destructive course.

This is also overtly a book about food, and the metaphors are plentiful as are the events that :--Food as reward (esp certain hard-to-find goods during the war)--Food as homecoming, as comfort, as a way to say "I love you"--Food as a trigger for a memory (Mirabelle's orange-smell-driven headaches)--Food as legacy--Food as livelihood, as a way to make money, as a way for women to support themselves

**Can I admit to being bothered by the title - it is mathematically impossible to have five quarters of one orange** Would I recommend this book to others? Yes. Will I remember it years from now? No...more

As a young, poor, ambitious psychologist at Yale, Dr. Will Friedrich wanted to make a name for himself. Dr. Bunny Winton and Will happened upon an herAs a young, poor, ambitious psychologist at Yale, Dr. Will Friedrich wanted to make a name for himself. Dr. Bunny Winton and Will happened upon an herb that had the potential to help people feel happy. It was the early days of drug testing; they performed an early experiment on rats (and Dr. Winton experimented on herself and Will) before moving to a trial. One person getting the drug and not the placebo was student genius Casper Gedsic who had tried to commit suicide. The trial ended w/ tragic consequences that had long term impacts to Will's family.

Wittenborn's themes and metaphors are compelling. Seeing the dysfunctional family life of a psychologist is like reading about the wild children of ministers - right or wrong, we expect their lives to be more exceptional because the head of the family is schooled in the human psyche and ethics, respectively. I think the message is this: that just because you might think you know what makes someone tick or, more sinister, you might know how to manipulate someone, this doesn't guarantee a happy family. Will wanted his children to be ambitious, to want the same things he wanted, which was shorted sighted and destructive - he should have known better. Why wasn't his children's happiness the most important thing? How ironic, in fact, that he wanted to make strangers' lives better but couldn't see that his success didn't make him happy, so there was no guarantee that his children would be happy if they were rich/famous/successful, either. I also liked the parrot metaphor, that it's one thing to repeat something and another to comprehend it.

Reminded me a bit of Richard Russo - life in academia, how discrete individuals fit into small town life, etc.

I took it down a star b/c of the glitches in the writing. The story shifts in narration which works when done well; the prologue is narrated by the youngest son of influential Dr. William Friedrich and is written in the first person. Book One is written in the third person from the shifting perspective of the different characters, but it felt awkward, like the perspective was 9/10 true and 1/10 false. For example, in a Will section, we read that "Dr. Winton had thought about her lieutenant, but not about what Friedrich was suggesting." How would Will know this? This section is from Will's perspective...grrr. Another example: In a section from Will's perspective (I know this b/c I read things such as "Will didn't want to talk to him," something only Will or an omnipotent narrator would know), Will is referred to as Friedrich and as "her husband", implying that the perspective has shifted mid stream to Nora's perspective. The section ends with what Nora was imagining and wishing and feeling.

In the time leading up to WWII, a young German girl with a communist father is given up to foster care. Her new father is a wonderful man, a house paiIn the time leading up to WWII, a young German girl with a communist father is given up to foster care. Her new father is a wonderful man, a house painter by trade and an accordion player in his free time. He in fact teaches her to read. Her new mother is has a kind heart but a harsh mouth; she brings in most of the income for the family by washing and mending other's clothing. In an additional twist, the book is narrated by Death, and because it is historical fiction, the reader already has a decent idea what is going to happen (to say nothing of Death's foreshadowing).

There is much symbolism in the novel:--Liesel's learning to read as a parallel to her coming-of-age--Stealing/book thievery as a childish revolt of the adult world--The innocence of children as hope for the future--Dominos as fate, as inevitability--The accordion as a symbol of a life saved--Most important, the power of words - Hitler uses words to change the tide of history; Liesel uses words to bring hope to Max; learning to read brings purpose and future; reading a book in the bomb shelter as comfort; book burning indicates that the authorities also know the power of the written word and how it could be used against their cause; The Word Shaker is an allegory of this topic - words as planted in our minds...more

Two poets argue in a small garden in a suburb of London on a night with a sky that hints at the end of days. One, Lucian Gregory, is an anarchist andTwo poets argue in a small garden in a suburb of London on a night with a sky that hints at the end of days. One, Lucian Gregory, is an anarchist and has the appearance of ape-meets-angel; he believes a true artist delights in disorder. The other, Gabriel Syme, believes in order and propriety and respectability. The two bait one another, and the night leads to a crazy adventure, with biblical overtones, where anarchy rivals order.

It's good fun; there are laugh-out-loud parts including geriatric chases and an elephant careening through London. One comment from my book club was that anarchists are today's terrorists...

Chesterton was known to despise worldly success, to champion lost causes. He came to religion later in his life. In the 1890s when he was at the Slade School, he had a self-professed "period of madness" where he found himself challenging his parent's progressivism in the face of society's pessimism. He apparently got himself out of this depressing spiral by reading authors that focus on the world's basic goodness, a belief he continued to hold; the critics state that he moved from liberalism to humanism to theism.

**spoiler alert**There are many Old and New Testament references throughout, something I didn't expect based on the blurb, e.g. the names of the men (Gabriel - archangel), the seven anarchists named after the seven days of the week (referring to the seven days of creation), in references to New Jerusalem, in Sunday's ultimate comment, "Can ye drink of the cup that I dram of?"

Themes:--Nothing is as bad as it looks; this is based on believing that there is salvation in the end, that there is a heaven; trust in God--Sunday/God is an enigma; if Sunday/God is the creator of everything, then the fact that some suffer and some don't is at the hand of Sunday/God; Sunday/God is therefore both great (the creator and leader of philosophical policemen) and terrible (the leader of the anarchists); this is Syme's problem (and the readers) - why does each dandelion have to fight against the world when both were created by God? Syme comes to see this as the necessary challenge of free will, that although God is portrayed as our Father, Jesus died for the sins of man, and man must now, like Job, follow the path that God has set him upon.--(Legitimate?) distrust of the state...more

Freese takes the reader through coal's history and its impact on human civilization, health, and the environment.

I found myself telling friends aboutFreese takes the reader through coal's history and its impact on human civilization, health, and the environment.

I found myself telling friends about what I had learned reading this book; Freese does a great job tying it all together and keeping the momentum until the last page.

Things I found especially interesting:--Coal as stored energy; humans are choosing to release that potential (and damn the consequences). "It's almost as if the lepidodendron of old had found a way to use humanity to re-create the planetary conditions they once thrived in"--Coal saved the sperm whale and the forests.--CO-based Western Association's marketing: God gave coal to humanity; "warm is good, cold is bad"--The US alone is responsible for 25% of the CO2 emissions--Coal's role in the steam engine and in the growth of the railroad--The Chinese use 13 times less electricity per capita than Americans--Chinese air pollution causes ~1 million deaths per year...more

Twenty-five year old Antoine hopes to dumb himself down. He believes that being smart results in being lonely, sad, and poor (all of which Antoine himTwenty-five year old Antoine hopes to dumb himself down. He believes that being smart results in being lonely, sad, and poor (all of which Antoine himself is). Burning midnight oil, he writes a mission statement and sets off on his plan. Hilarity ensues as he accomplishes his goal of becoming stupid.

This book was funny; I found myself sharing the laugh-out-loud sections. Page is playing with a serious subject, that ignorance is bliss, that what you don't know can't hurt you, that all the things society and capitalism tell you to want will result in happiness, that happiness is the ultimate, final destination. He couches this discussion in poor, selfish, silly, over privileged Antoine, of course; obsessing over our own happiness is a first-world problem, as are the drugs that go with it. It's a funny satire - Antoine knows the irony of his situation, and the knowledge makes him sick w/ sadness and despair, so he decides to embrace it to see if he can make things better. One mixed benefit of being in the first world is knowing just how ridiculous your problems are in the grand scheme of things but having no way to fix them and no way to think your way out of them, a catch-22 of sorts.

The ending is a bit weak; what he predicts w/in the first few pages basically comes to pass, which is rather disappointing....more

Kennedy has written a series of novels set in Albany, New York, in the early third of the 18th century about a set of connected characters. "Ironweed"Kennedy has written a series of novels set in Albany, New York, in the early third of the 18th century about a set of connected characters. "Ironweed" focuses on Francis Phelan, once a professional baseball player, now a vagabond, a bum.

I'm surprised more isn't made of William Kennedy's books. He won the Pulitzer after "Ironweed," and, boy, do I see why. It's a compelling balance of socio-political writing w/ raw, human characters. Kennedy sets his books in the early 1900s although writing them in the 70s and 80s and 90s. In interviews he states that this allows him to reflect on events that are closed; he can make parallels between current events and what we supposedly learned as a society from historical events.

*spoiler alert*In this novel, we learn that Francis, who had been an excellent baseball player, killed a scab in a trolley strike by a well-aimed rock to the head. The crowd, the police, the National Guard (called in by the trolley company), all is mayhem; two other men are shot by police before it dies down. Francis is rightly shaken by these deaths, either directly or indirectly by his hand, and goes on the run; in fact, the ghosts of these men appear to Francis throughout. Over the course of his life, Francis operates at moments inside and outside society. Instead of blaming the company or the city or the government for the strike brought on by an insufficient living wage and his subsequent life on the run, Francis takes his anger out on the scab, one poor worker pitted against another poor worker. Francis's internalization and blame and guilt was a parallel to what I as the reader was doing - blaming the flawed individual for missing out on the American dream. However, a step back and a review of events shows that this marginalized society had very little control over the vast movements at work - the Great Depression, too few jobs, too many working hours (Francis's father worked on the railway; during this time rail workers worked 18-20 hours a day, greater than the insane 16 hour max work day that was at that time dictated by law), too little pay - all at work in the capitalist America machine. Kennedy was writing this in the 80s, when unions were sinking quickly in popularity, even from the liberals, and when much chopping of socialist programs was in the works. Kennedy wants us to look at what our social policies and economics have resulted, at the impact to the fate of the poor.

This is a book about the marginalized. The section about Oscar, another man w/ great potential as a singer, was beautifully done: "...this drunk was not dead, not dying, but living an epilogue to a notable life...a man for whom life had been a promise unkept in spite of great success, a promise now and forever un-keepable" (pg50). Francis is compelled to try to figure out what went wrong...how did they miss the American dream?

Francis is a rich and complex character. He has loved and has been loved deeply. Despite having nothing, he gives everything to those in need. He tends to be motivated by two large forces - life preservation (how many died at the hands of Francis's self defense? A lot) and flight. He's also incredibly insensitive to the women who love him - he leaves his wife Annie w/ a family to raise on her own. He leaves Helen in a car knowing a hand job will be the result - it is as if he punishes them for loving him, for relying on him....more

**spoiler alert**We read this book as a book club, and the opinions were unanimous.1. The AHistorical fiction about the life of Anne Morrow Lindbergh.

**spoiler alert**We read this book as a book club, and the opinions were unanimous.1. The Anne of this fictionalized account was not portrayed as a strong character. Whether the real Anne was strong or not is a question for history. If over a lifetime the number of times you stick up for yourself in the face of your husband's dominance can be counted on one hand, you are not strong. Events that change a person's life (like the kidnap and death of a first born) didn't act as a reset button for Anne. Of course, there were extenuating circumstances - the role and expectations of women in society at this time, for one. The expectations and the way her parents raised her is another. That's fine. However, these were hurdles she did not leap. Was Anne accomplished? Yes. However, accomplishment has nothing to do w/ strength in this case - she was accomplished because she did what others told her to do, she did what was expected.2. Is the media evil or not? Can they be held responsible for events that resulted from their publications or not? I found the fictional character's two-faced nature of this apparent conundrum to bother me on multiple layers. Let's start w/ Anne and Charles - they moved to England to get away from the media, for crying out loud, but they were quick to use the media to suit their own purposes (e.g. they both published books and pamphlets about their lives that they expected and wanted to become best sellers; Charles used the media to make up to America after he got involved w/ Ford in the war effort; whenever Charles had something to say, some over-rated opinion to express, he quickly went looking for the media). Manipulation and masks (in fact this was not journalism; they worked together to re-write history) were the name of the game. Second, reading this book felt a little dirty - what do the living members of this family feel about this book? How can we continue to capitalize on this family? This isn't journalism, this wasn't written by those w/ the voice in the know (and there are people still living w/ that voice), this isn't fact. This book is further conjecture, further prying into a family that had enough fiction written about them....more

Modernist in its changing perspectives. This version, published in 1963, starts w/ Book One - Rosemary meets Dick and Nicole Diver and their friends oModernist in its changing perspectives. This version, published in 1963, starts w/ Book One - Rosemary meets Dick and Nicole Diver and their friends on the beach. Book Two goes back in time when Dick and Nicole first meet in Austria 1917.

This book was based on Fitzgerald's life.

**spoiler alert**Nicole Warren, suffering from post traumatic stress disorder from incest at the hands of her father, was admitted into a mental health hospital. Because of this early trauma, the men in Nicole's life define her. Dick was older than her 16 years when they met; he was her doctor and her friend. He was like a father figure to her in his knowledge and ability to make her feel better. She replaces him when he no longer fills the father figure role.

One critic speaks of the engendering of war. In the early decades of the 20th century, masculine was defined as being a breadwinner, being the speaker/actor/decider, protecting territory, participating in the war, showing heterosexual traits. Feminine traits were in fact those of the doctors - attentive, doting, mothering. Dick was more feminine; maybe this explains why Nicole was able to trust him so early on even though she was struggling w/ her relationships w/ other men? However, as Dick declined throughout the novel and as she matured (became more healthy mentally?), Nicole turned to Tommy, who was in fact hyper masculine. He was a soldier, he was a protector. Fitzgerald takes Tommy Barban to an extreme - the antique guns, the dual, the removal of part of his skull. Rosemary's first impression of him was that he was "less civilized" (barbarian, like his name). Rosemary lives in the interesting middle ground - as described by her own mother, she is both male and female. She is part of the "real" world, she works for a living. She is less emotionally damaged than both Nicole and Dick. She is consciously exploited and exploits in return. She has power because she is independent.

What happens to Dick? How does he fall so far? Note that Dick is the hero, the protagonist of this story. He was an idealist, a doctor, a knowledgeable and sensitive guy from the middle class. Dick in his prime was a wooer, a pleaser. Whenever he was speaking to you, he made you feel that you were the center of his world. He manufactured self to gain approval from others. Rosemary, a very young actress, noted his self-control and self-discipline in this regard.1. One could argue that he was too kind - he gave up his career for love, for Nicole (and yet what doctor falls in love with his patient??); he was depleted of emotional capital in caring for his wife.2. The Warren money also had a hand in destroying him; it was almost impossible for him to win, short of becoming a famous doctor in and of himself, and it was unclear he had the capability.3. The affair w/ Rosemary resulted in moral degeneration. Was it a desperate attempt at masculinity? A power grab to show he still had it in him? That Nicole had something to lose?4. A compulsive need to be loved; he was addicted to charm. The super ego is instilled by our parents; it is a censor. Dick's super ego was defined by his father the clergyman, who was severe, virtuous. Dick, however, didn't approve of his father's life, so his super ego wasn't strong enough to keep in check his id/ego.

It was beautifully written. The characters and the story, however, felt over-privileged and somewhat superficial, pampered and spoiled. Dick failed partially because he had too much money? What a first world problem. Rosemary was a welcome addition re: Nicole's heavy need for a protector....more